You wrote:
> Here is a problem. Without a clear and widely understood definition of
> what
> the DNSO is and what it is supposed to do, how can anyone agree on how it
> is
> to be constituted?
>
I don't know whether there's consensus on what the DNSO is and should do,
but here's my opinion.
The DNSO is the unique chance we have to discuss the problems and propose
solutions for the matter regarding the Domain Name Space and its evolution.
In the past, problems like the introduction of new gTLDs were impossible to
solve, because of the confusion of roles and responsibility among IANA, USG,
NSI, ...
The idea is now to have an organization where all points of view are
represented, that will elect a Council that will advise ICANN on what to do.
ICANN will, supposedly, have enough authority to apply the solution, if its
board accepts it and endorses it.
If this vision is shared, the answer to your questions is straightforward.
BTW, what is *your* opinion and/or answer to the questions?
Roberto
> Is it being formed just 'because ICANN said so' ?
>
> Is it a body to implement industry self regulation?
>
> Is it a social club, with a common interest membership?
>
> Is it a producer cartel?
>
> Where is the mission statement, or to put it another way, where is the
> requirements document?
>
> And don't say the ICANN bylaws, those bylaws have SO's in them because
> supposedly there was a consensus that SO's were desired -
>
> BUT NOBODY EVER SAID WHY!!!
>
> Without a clear statement of purpose, the only conclusion that can be made
> is that this is all a power grab, pure and simple.
>
> Simple question - without three board seats up for grabs, would anyone be
> bothering with this?
>
> David Schutt
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-discuss@dnso.org [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > Kent Crispin
> > Sent: Thursday, December 24, 1998 1:41 AM
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry, we are at cross purposes. I don't think of the DNSO as a
> > regulatory body at all, and I don't believe I said it was. In fact,
> > it was you who made that assumption.
>
>